Was Sola Fide introduced during the Apostles' Time?

[ajpirc]

Was the doctrine of Sola Fide adopted by Luther from early Christianity? It seems as though James talks about it at the end of James 2 like it was a false teaching of the early Church. If it wasn’t, then how was James right on the money with writing about a heresy not introduced until 1500 years later?

 

[SteveVH]

Was the doctrine of Sola Fide adopted by Luther from early Christianity? It seems as though James talks about it at the end of James 2 like it was a false teaching of the early Church. If it wasn’t, then how was James right on the money with writing about a heresy not introduced until 1500 years later?

Heresies are nothing new. They’ve been around since the beginning. However, it seems to me that James was not addressing a heresy, but rather explaining the importance of putting flesh on the words of the Gospel; living out your faith through your deeds. It is just good evidence that Luther was wrong in this teaching which is why he wanted to remove James from the canon of scripture. I’ve never seen the heresy of “faith alone” mentioned in the ECF’s, but I haven’t read everything either.

 

[SyCarl]

Heresies are nothing new. They’ve been around since the beginning. However, it seems to me that James was not addressing a heresy, but rather explaining the importance of putting flesh on the words of the Gospel; living out your faith through your deeds. It is just good evidence that Luther was wrong in this teaching which is why he wanted to remove James from the canon of scripture. I’ve never seen the heresy of “faith alone” mentioned in the ECF’s, but I haven’t read everything either.

Actually John Chrysostom and Ambrosiaster both refer a number of times to faith alone. A number of others also used the words.

 

[romesweethome]

Yes, of course it was introduced and James swiftly refuted it. You can read his infallible take on the matter in James 2.
peace rsh

 

[SteveVH]

Actually John Chrysostom and Ambrosiaster both refer a number of times to faith alone. A number of others also used the words.

Thanks, I’ll check it out. I haven’t seen the context, obviously, but it seems that many who argue for sola fide paint the other side as believing in works only, which is certainly not the case. In any event, I am curious as to what John Chrysostom and Ambrodiaster had to say about it. Do you have any specific references?

Thanks again.

 

[SyCarl]

Thanks, I’ll check it out. I haven’t seen the context, obviously, but it seems that many who argue for sola fide paint the other side as believing in works only, which is certainly not the case. In any event, I am curious as to what John Chrysostom and Ambrodiaster had to say about it. Do you have any specific references?

Thanks again.

I can provide links for Chrysostom but not Ambrosiaster.

But after saying that “it was excluded,” he shows also, how. How then does he say it was excluded? “By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.” See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the “law of faith?” It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.

(Homilies on Romans, Homily 7)
newadvent.org/fathers/210207.htm

For as men, upon receiving some great good, ask themselves if it is not a dream, as not believing it; so it is with respect to the gifts of God. What then was it that was thought incredible? That those who were enemies, and sinners, neither justified by the law, nor by works, should immediately through faith alone be advanced to the highest favor…Against this he contends; for it seemed to them incredible, that a man who had mis-spent all his former life in vain and wicked actions, should afterwards be saved by his faith alone. On this account he says, “It is a saying to be believed.”

(Homilies on 1 Timothy, Homily 4)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.v.iii.v.html

They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed

(Homilies on Galatians, Homily 3, Verse 8)
newadvent.org/fathers/23103.htm

For he makes a wide distinction between “commandments” and “ordinances.” He either then means “faith,” calling that an “ordinance,” (for by faith alone He saved us,) or he means “precept,” such as Christ gave, when He said, “But I say unto you, that you are not to be angry at all. That is to say, If thou shalt believe that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.’And again, The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thine heart. Say not, Who shall ascend into heaven, or who shall descend into the abyss?’ or, who hath brought. Him again from the dead?’ Instead of a certain manner of life, He brought in faith. For that He might not save us to no purpose, He both Himself underwent the penalty, and also required of men the faith that is by doctrines”

(Homilies on Ephesians, Homily 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/230105.htm

Everywhere he puts the Gentiles upon a thorough equality. “And put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith.” From faith alone, he says, they obtained the same gifts. This is also meant as a lesson to those (objectors); this is able to teach even them that faith only is needed, not works nor circumcision.

(Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 32)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.xxxii.html

This is not to say that he did not view good works as important because he also said:

God’s mission was not to save people in order that they may remain barren or inert. For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent.

(Homily on Ephesians 4.2.9. Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 134.)

Sorry, I do not have a link for this last quote.

 

[roads152]

Neither faith alone nor good works alone saves but faith and good works combined. Whether the former or the later was introduced in any given time in the history of the Church doesn’t matter.
The Church teaches us to believe and do morally good acts in order to take part in the salvation that Christ has gained for us on the cross.
We can look at this point the same way we look at ourselves as body and soul combined equals man. Faith and good works combined equals salvation. Separate the body from the soul and the man ceases to exist. Separate faith from good works and salvation is gone.

 

[Algo1]

I can provide links for Chrysostom but not Ambrosiaster.

(Homilies on Romans, Homily 7)
newadvent.org/fathers/210207.htm

(Homilies on 1 Timothy, Homily 4)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.v.iii.v.html

(Homilies on Galatians, Homily 3, Verse 8)
newadvent.org/fathers/23103.htm

(Homilies on Ephesians, Homily 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/230105.htm

(Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 32)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.xxxii.html

This is not to say that he did not view good works as important because he also said:

(Homily on Ephesians 4.2.9. Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 134.)

Sorry, I do not have a link for this last quote.

I may be able to provide some quotes by Ambrosiaster.

 

[Algo1]

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), wrote while commenting on 1 Cor. 1:4b: God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works. By ** faith alone ** he receives the forgiveness of sins. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VII: 1-2 Corinthians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 6.
Latin Text Datam dicit gratiam a Deo in Christo Jesu, quae gratia sic data est in Christo Jesu; quia hoc constitutum est a Deo, ut qui credit in Christum, salvus sit sine opere: sola fide gratis accipit remissionem peccatorum. In Epistolam B. Pauli Ad Corinthios Primam, PL 17:185.

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 1:11: For the mercy of God had been given for this reason, that they should cease from the works of the law, as I have often said, because God, taking pity on our weaknesses, decreed that the human race would be saved by faith alone, along with the natural law. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 23.
Latin Text: Nam misericordia Dei ad hoc data est, ut Lex cessaret, quod saepe jam dixi; quia Deus consulens infirmitati humanae, sola fide addita legi naturali, hominum genus salvare decrevit. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:53.

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 2:12: For if the law is given not for the righteous but for the unrighteous, whoever does not sin is a friend of the law. For him faith alone is the way by which he is made perfect. For others mere avoidance of evil will not gain them any advantage with God unless they also believe in God, so that they may be righteous on both counts. For the one righteousness is temporal; the other is eternal. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 65.
Latin Text: Si enim justo non est lex posita, sed injustis; qui non peccat, amicus legis est. Huic sola fides deest, per quam fiat perfectus quia nihil illi proderit apud Deum abstinere a contrariis, nisi fidem in Deum acceperit, ut sit justus per utraque; quia illa temporis justitia est, haec aeternitatis. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:67.

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 3:24: They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 101.
Latin Text: Justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius. Justificati sunt gratis, quia nihil operantes, neque vicem reddentes, sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:79.

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 3:27: Paul tells those who live under the law that they have no reason to boast basing themselves on the law and claiming to be of the race of Abraham, ** seeing that no one is justified before God except by faith** Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 103.
Latin Text: Ubi est ergo gloriatio tua? Exclusa est. Per quam legem? factorum? Non, sed per legem fidei. Reddita ratione, ad eos loquitur, qui agunt sub lege, quod sine causa glorientur, blandientes sibi de lege, et propter quod genus sint Abrahae, videntes non justificari hominem apud Deum, nisi per fidem. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:80.

 

[Algo1]

**Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 4:5: ** How then can the Jews think that they have been justified by the works of the law in the same way as Abraham, when they see that Abraham was not justified by the works of the law but by faith alone? Therefore there is no need of the law when the ungodly is justified before God by faith alone. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 112.
Latin Text: Hoc dicit, quia sine operibus legis credenti impio, id est gentili, in Christum, reputatur fides ejus ad justitiam, sicut et Abrahae. Quomodo ergo Judaei per opera legis justificari se putant justificatione Abrahae; cum videant Abraham non per opera legis, sed sola fide justificatum? Non ergo opus est lex, quando impius per solam fidem justificatur apud Deum. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:82-83.

**Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 4:6, ‘righteousness apart from works’: ** Paul backs this up by the example of the prophet David, who says that those are blessed of whom God has decreed that, without work or any keeping of the law, they are justified before God by faith alone Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 113.
Latin Text: Hoc ipsum munit exemplo prophetae. Beatitudinem hominis, cui Deus accepto fert justitiam sine operibus. Beatos dicit de quibus hoc sanxit Deus, ut sine labore et aliqua observatione, sola fide justificentur apud Deum. In Epistolam Ad Romanos, PL 17:83.

 

[Madaglan]

Was the doctrine of Sola Fide adopted by Luther from early Christianity? It seems as though James talks about it at the end of James 2 like it was a false teaching of the early Church. If it wasn’t, then how was James right on the money with writing about a heresy not introduced until 1500 years later?

In the early Church there are Fathers who do write that we are justified by faith and not by works. For example, St. Mark the Ascetic writes the work, On Those who Think that They are Made Righteous by Works: Two Hundred and Twenty-Six Texts. This piece is collected in the Philokalia compiled by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth.

This said, the same very same early Christian Fathers emphasized the need of ascetic struggle and the cultivation of charity. When they Fathers mention “faith alone”, they do not mean it in the same as the Reformers, since the Reformers built on the satisfaction atonement theory of Anselm, which was unknown to the early Fathers.

 

[mackbrislawn]

In the early Church there are Fathers who do write that we are justified by faith and not by works.

All right, what is meant by justified? It seems that different groups use it to mean different things. What did the Fathers mean by it?

And what is meant by faith? Simple belief? Simple acceptance of a teaching as true?

Or does it assume that because we have faith we will act upon it? For example, the faith of the woman that was bleeding told her that if she touched the hem of Jesus’ garment, she would be healed. She elbowed her way through the crowd, touched his cloak, power flowed from Jesus, and she was healed. Jesus said to her, your faith has saved you.

Well, scripture explicitly said it was Jesus’ power. However, she thought it was touching his cloak, and Jesus himself said it was her faith! What was it, then, that did it?

 

[KathleenGee]

St Peter in his second letter forbade personal interpretation of Scripture.

Gnosticism existed at the beginning of Christianity and was always rival to it. Later on a priest challenged his bishop stating that Christ was created and separate of the Father, in essence Arianism. Correction to it came at the Council of Nicea…and subsequently, Catholics henceforth profess the Nicene Creed at Resurrection Sunday Mass.